Romney’s criticism of Obama on “redistribution” (2 letters)

Mitt Romney’s criticism of President Obama illustrates how far the increasingly desperate GOP candidate has wobbled to the right during this campaign season. Attacking Mr. Obama for suggesting that government should play a role to “make sure that everybody’s got a shot” at realizing the American dream is yet another example of the tone-deafness of the former Massachusetts governor. The hypocrisy of Gov. Romney’s purported concern over “redistribution” is demonstrated in his unwavering support for the Bush-era tax cuts, which “redistributed” billions to very wealthiest of Americans. Perhaps the governor should go in for a hearing test.

Thomas H. Simmons, Denver

This letter was published in the Sept. 24 edition.

So now Mitt Romney is trying to make “redistribution” a dirty word, and say that “it’s never been a characteristic of America.” Well, if he believes that, he’d better drop out of the race for President, because the entire business of government is redistribution of wealth. The government gets money from the private sector and “redistributes” it to serve, supposedly, the best interests of the public, or in reality, the best interests of those in power and their supporters. Both major political parties love to redistribute our money — their only disagreement is who gets it!

Catherine Kraeger-Rovey, Denver

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Or any number of well connected corporations like them or Halliburton.

Anonymous

I don’t always agree with you, but you at least try not to play favorites with corporations and their hand in the US treasury.

Anonymous

Nah, Greg you are mixing things up. Halliburton may get government contracts, but Solyndra got a government backed loan that ended up costing the taxpayer $500 million. All crony capitalism is wrong and the only way to minimize it is to make the government smaller.

Anonymous

Solyndra is a perfect example of what happens when The Government sticks their stupid nose in a business they never should have invested in or tried to prop up.

The USSR……North Korea,,,,,and even Cuba…..are examples of what happens when there is an “unholy” and “immoral”…”marriage” between The Government and Business.

The United States became the United States simply because the Founding Fathers

Anonymous

But, Gregory, all human recipients of any gummint largess are lazy bums,
while corporations are receiving only that which a generous public has given them in their drive to keep America’s free-market free-enterprise engine running.
Or something like that.

Anonymous

The Government…..ALWAYS….ALWAYS…..runs at a “net LOSS.” ALWAYS. The Government of the United States has NEVER made a “profit” by which The Government takes NO taxes and pays US (like Alaska apparently may do because of their oil royalties).

Private Business – BIG STINKING PRIVATE BUSINESSES – that employ most of the American Workforce……either makes a PROFIT and continues to happily employ their employees……or, like the Federal Government, they operate at a net LOSS until (unlike the Federal Government…yet) they go Bankrupt.

In other words, Bi

Anonymous

Ever read a rabid Robf rant and go. . . “this just to inane to waste my time replying to?” Raise your hands, and feel the breeze of consensus.

Anonymous

ah, yes. . the job creators!

Anonymous

Businesses do NOT receive trillions in “welfare.”

“Welfare” is receiving “free money” for nothing in return.

Businesses do receive BILLIONS

Anonymous

Nonsense. They indeed receive welfare in the form of tax breaks, “incentives” and “loans.” Do try to pay attention.

Anonymous

“Incentives” are akin to “tax breaks” in that they are designed to result in a Net Profit to the Government giving that “incentive” and NOT a Net Loss.
“Loans” are just that: LOANS……that The Government (and WE) expect to be PAID BACK for.
Neither “incentives” nor “loans” are anything akin to “paying someone on welfare NOT to work” which IS a LOSS for both the Government and We The Taxpayers.

Anonymous

Nonsense. Corporations should sink or swim on their own. They shouldn’t receive “incentives”, tax breaks or “loans”.

Anonymous

I agree with you Greg. Tax incentives, loans, and subsidies are either picking winners or trying to control private corporations actions in the marketplace. But to quote a current president if we took those away, “That wouldn’t be fair.”

Anonymous

Gregory, Robtf and goodspkr like welfare for certain businesses, so therefore it can never be called welfare.

Anonymous

NOt really. I consider the subsidies the government gives to green energy and grants to businesses to be corporate welfare or crony capitalism.

Anonymous

I disagree. First businesses don’t pay taxes, business collect taxes. Their customers pay the taxes. Second, Incentives are another form of control by the state over businesses which screws up a free market. We need to stop it. Finally loans generally are loan guarantees (the government doesn’t actually provide the loans) and again it is something that screws up the market. We saw how badly the market was screwed up when Fannie and Freddie and the Treasury Department started interfering with the housing market.

As Ronald Reagan said many years ago, government isn’t part of the solution, government is part of the problem.

Anonymous

Just out of curiosity which corporations receive trillions in welfare?

Anonymous

I’m referring to corporations as a whole. I may have exaggerated on the trillions, but not by much.

Anonymous

Over what period of time? Since the beginning of the Republic or yearly or what?

Anonymous

According to a couple of different sources, one liberal one conservative, corporate welfare in 2011 ranged between 180 billion and 2 trillion dollars.

Clastics

Your “corporate wellfare” term is incredibly broad. Are we looking at deductions which reduce taxible earnings (depreciation for example)? Or are we looking at R&D tax credits? Or is it something else? Because I see a lot of deliberate economic policy with specific aims towards making the US more competitive and trying to change the investment landscape.

We could argue if this is the most effective approach (have a single tax policy at lower brackets? have higher tax rates and accept the higher pre-tax return barrier for investment to take place?); however, the approach that we have doesn’t seem to reflect “hand outs” but instead a consistent tax framework which the US has adopted and upon which investments are made.

Anonymous

I would love to see those links. Since the government spends 3.7 trillion last year, if they spend $800 Billion for means tested welfare, another $680 billion for defense, $766 billion for social security, $482 billion for Medicare and another $347 billion of other healthcare, $256 billion for interest on the growing debt, $127 billion on the VA, and $100 billion on education that comes to $3.558 trillion and I only put in the big items. I’m not sure where they are hiding the corporate welfare.

Anonymous

watch out Gregory! good is baiting you. For every factual referenced website you try to show him where he’s (gulp!) wrong, he’ll find ten pro-business, right-wing, websites making up fuzzy math that can’t be verified (because their believers not realists), and claim you don’t know what you’re talking about, because he’s smarter (i.e., stronger believer) than you!

Anonymous

Nah, TH, I wanted to see what sites he was talking about because there are obviously a lot of assumptions built into them. Actually this is called a conversation. Greg made a statement and I asked for clarification. I didn’t jump to conclusions, or call Greg a liar, I simply asked for information. You on the other hand were speculating like crazy.

Anonymous

“Redistribution” itself is not all that bad. Religious Charities (and even non-religious charities) exist for that very purpose.

It is the WAY the “redistribution” is accomplished that causes….problems.

Communists. Socialists, Liberals, and Democrats have their “way”…..which involves The Government” doing all the taking and giving……kind of like Robin Hood…..who was nothing but a Thief that the poor people liked even though he was nothing but a Thief.

Anonymous

This is pure brilliance! You need to send this to the Romney campaign as a quote he can use. Oh, wait he already said it!

thor

Thomas probably doesn’t know what President Obama means by the words “make sure that everybody’s got a shot.” I bet he would be surprised to learn he really means “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Or, take from the rich and give to the poor. Or, equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

And talking about making something a “dirty word.” How about the demonisation of the word “voucher” by the left. Giving someone a voucher is actually a good thing. But redistributing wealth is not a good thing. A voucher allows someone to buy the insurance that fits their needs. Redistribution just takes one persons money and gives it to another.

Anonymous

Regarding your last sentence, how are vouchers any less redistributionist?
Regarding your reference to the “from each according to his abilities” … Call Obama a Marxist would have usewd fewer words and been more succinct.
I see no difference between that quote and the actions of the early Christian church in Acts 2:44 – 45

Anonymous

The early Church did what they did as a voluntary act of being charitable to one another……the “I have something I can sell and that we can all share in” ideology.

That was NOT “the Government” TAKING at all.

Anonymous

Actually it was because the Church in Jerusalem was facing stiff persecution.
Of course you’d know that if you knew an iota about the history of the Church.

Anonymous

Robtf thinks the “history of the Church” began in 1910, with the publishing of the first volume of “The Fundamentals”.

The “Word”. . according to Robtf. I’m amazed Robt has finally given up the pulpit to speak from on-hight to actually “replying” to other posts. Progress?

I love how “Christians” need to “explain” what the church or religion is about, when facts explain what government is about. Only works for the “believers!”

Anonymous

Nah, Pete, because if someone calls Obama a Marxist than we would get into an argument over what a Marxist is. Certainly the statement “from each according to his abilities” is part of Marxism, Marxism covers a lot more territory.

Anonymous

IIRC, Marx foresaw a day when workers “threw off their chains”, were accorded the same respect as industrialists. the value of their labor was fully compensated for, the clash between workers and industrialists would cease, and government would wither away.
Once this implausible Utopia was reached, THEN people would achieve their highest potential, and aid would voluntarily flow from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Voluntarily, goodspkr.
Which makes a certain poster’s (whose user name ending is a one-armed-bandit afficianado’s dream) argument superfluous. Again, I see no difference between that quote (understood in Karl Marx’s context) and the Acts verses I cited above.
People put in to the common treasury according to their ability.
People were given aid from the common treasury according to their need.

let’s give thor “a voucher” to hire a security firm to protect him and his home and family from bad people, a vocher to hire a private firm to put out the fire if his home catches fire, a voucher to pay for him to only drive on toll roads, and a voucher to hire mercenaries to protect him for terrorists. After all according to thor. . “a voucher is actually a good thing!”

Obamawins

And he should quit his union job, since he blasts unions all the time! But I’d be curious how long he’s enjoyed his union pay, benefits, and working conditions. All the while blasting unions as the “problem”.

thor

Do you ever pay attention to what I write, or just pick and choose. I have been very critical of PUBLIC SECTOR unions, not PRIVATE sector unions. Even FDR said that there should not be ANY public sector unions. Now, does that help.

Obamawins

I’ve seen you critical of ALL unions. You even said this:

“Let me just add this to what goodspkr wrote. All told, the U.S. union membership rate was 11.8 percent of the total workforce in 2011, down from 11.9 percent a year earlier. It seems that most of the US work force is doing well dspite the unions, not because of the unions. Its called competition for the best workers. My daughter is in a biding war between 2 companies for her services because she is good at what she does. BTW, she doesn’t work for a union, lucky her.”

You didn’t specify “PUBLIC SECTOR unions”!! And there’s NO NEED TO YELL!!!!!!
Now, does that help YOU???

thor

Wow, I feel like a celebrity. Are you stalking me? (Just kidding.) Yes, I have little good to say about unions in general. But I have been most critical of public sector unions. Do a little more research and you will be able to find that info.

Obamawins

I belong to a union. Have since 1980. And I know they have been responsible for my high wages, benefits, and much safer working conditions than when I started! I’ve been on the union negotiating committee and know how hard it is to bargain. But I was also willing to give and take, and fortunately the management at that time did the same. Unions have been under attack since Reagan. That’s why I don’t have much use for republicans (think Scott Walker) who keep up those attacks.
I do pay attention…..especially when I see someone contradict themselves. But I don’t comment all the time. (don’t want to have my name with 4000 posts….I would rather have a life!!) Most of the time I just shake my head and see that folks like you are hopeless!!

thor

there are two kinds of union members: “folks like me” who join because our job requires it (More than you might think) and “folks like you” who are strong union advocates. “Folks like me” can be both Democrat and Republican. (Feeling hopeless, so I’m not sure I should reply.)

thor

OW, come clean. Do you really believe that there should be public sector unions?

Obamawins

I think anyone who wants to organize a union has the right to. No exceptions.

thor

So, you really haven’t thought it out.

Obamawins

Like I said….you’re hopeless!!

BTW…..Obama wins a second term!

thor

And it is. But I don’t see the correlation between a voucher for insurance and the things you listed. Do you have any idea what the subject is about? Or are you happy with the Democrat spin.

Anonymous

and while we’re at it, lets give “vouchers” to companies and businesses rather than tax breaks or subsidies. Remember when Colorado tried to pass a law to give “vouchers to the poor” so poor kids could go to private schools just like rich kids! Trouble is the voucher was only $2,000, when the average private schools was $15-$30k! Same thing would happen under Ryan’s Medicare voucher plan. It could only afford to give a token amount, and the senior would have to make up the rest.

Anonymous

Here’s a sermon lesson my pastor just told us today (Sunday). (And…..yes….for those who are going “AHA”…..the “clues” of “pastor” and “Sunday” means that I am neither…..Jewish or Muslim.)

The “difference” between Communism and Charity:

Communism: You have something I don’t have (or don’t feel I have enough of) and that I want. I will….”redistribute” it from you to me,

Charity: I have extra of something that you need and/or can use. I will “redistribute” it from me to you.

Theoretically, they both “kind of” “sort of” end up doing the same thing.

But which one is the preferred method of……Democrats……versus the preferred method of…..Republicans?

Which one is all about “forcibly, under threat of LAW, take, take, take” and which one is more “voluntarily…..give, give, give.”

Which one leads to “expected entitrlements” and which one leads to “thanks and gratitude”?

Which one would you prefer to see in this country…..and which one is more akin to the failures of the USSR and North Korea?

Which one does the Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, the Denver Rescue Mission and hundreds of Charities throughout this nation use – and have used – quite successfully – for, in some cases, hundreds of years………and which one is a relatively “new” ideology that Democrats use and prefer? (think of the failures of the 1960s “War on Poverty” to NOT only FAIL to “end poverty”….but to actually “maintain it” for generations to basically the SAME people.)

Perhaps there is a REASON that, per capita, poor Mississippians give a higher % of their income to “charities” than do Rich White New England Democrats.

Anonymous

Any one want to bet which poster here has the most “thumbs down” votes? Or for that matter, the most posts! (without replying?)?

irisman

This talk of redistribution is mostly nonsense. Federal, state, and local governments have been spending on the same things for many years, like defense, highways, medicare, social security, schools, police, agriculture, the FBI , etc. More people are on food stamps, but you can’t blame the government for that. A major redistribution has taken place from the working people to the top 2%, especially the top 1/10 0f 1%. Romney’s visit to the hardware store was purely ceremonial, but if he would have taken a few minutes to look at the products on the shelves he would see that most of the items that used to be made in the US are now made in other countries. The Walton family is sitting on $69 billion, but wages at Walmart are so low that thousand of their employees all over the country are dependent on Medicaid. If somebody who works there even whispers the word “union” they are immediately fired. why should the taxpayer have to pay for the healthcare of Walmart employees?

Anonymous

Just like “compromise” is the ugly “C-word” for Republicans, so is “redistribution.” I guess “pay it forward” and “do unto others” is next? Thank you Catherine for explaining what the “evil” government in a democracy is supposed to do.
Let’s admit to it – Republicans have no “Christian values” unless it’s to put down women, deny their rights and keep them home-bound, or stop gay weddings, and other “Christian values.” The “taught” Christian values of helping others some how got lost in their teaching.
The real reason Republicans hate entitlements and the word redistribution, is that they’re all greedy. This is why they believe government should be run like a business, where profit is the only motive. . . oh, and lending a helping hand to fellow CEO or business.

Anonymous

Nonsense. When JFK was criticized for favoring the rich when he endorsed tax cuts that helped businesses create jobs, JFK replied that the best form of welfare is a high paying job. That doesn’t seem to register with the far left these days anymore than it did when the Democrats were a moderate left of center party.

thor

Most democrats today wouldn’t recognize the party that voted in JFK in ’60. And most of them wouldn’t have voted for JFK in a primary if he would have run against Obama.

Anonymous

What is funny when folks begin lambasting gov`t backed loans and such to companies is that gov`t has been doing such things for decades. What do you think the small business loan program is and has been? The Small Business Administration was created in 1953 by (horrors I know) a Republican president (Eisenhower). It has long been considered the business of gov`t to support the establishment and growth of business in the US and most all businesses begin as small ones. A quarter of all gov`t contract dollars are supposed to go to small businesses (not that I don`t agree there are problems in that program…..but that is beyond this comment). The SBA provides low interest gov`t backed loans to small businesses all the time. Some pay off by becoming big businesses, some flounder and go under. It happens all the time.

Almost ALL basic science and technology research in America is funded in one way or another by the US gov’t. I’d go even further to say the same is true for the next level up for research as well (although I’m not going to go look up the numbers this morning). Think of the Internet. The original concept was a contract out of DARPA. Think of all the technology that flowed out of the space program. I could go on but you get my drift I hope.

These all came from our taxpayer dollars. Some could call it redistribution or corporate welfare. And it is. Why should the taxpayer dollars pay for all that stuff? I think it is because it is an investment for the betterment of America as a whole. The only change I would like to see is somehow tying these investment to mandatory use of the idea/concept/outcome….whatever to be used, built, again whatever, here in America. No more getting the investment in the small business to get it up and running only to move production to India or Indonesia or China so that you can make a higher profit. To me you use Taxpayer money and you should have to stay here for 50 yrs. Of courese, I also think big pharma that uses taxpayer funded research to develop a drug shouldn’t be charging the taxpayer and arm and a leg for it either. But that is another input for another day.

Obamawins

Or you can take Willard’s advice (from national journal):
“Romney, a wealthy former investment banker who has struggled to soften his image as a member of America’s super elite, was discussing ways of achieving the American dream at Otterbein University. He said, “We’ve always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it. Take a risk. Get the education. Borrow money if you have to from your parents. Start a business.”
So how far out of touch is Willard??? Like the 47% he doesn’t care about, have parents with money to borrow from!!

Anonymous

It is only redistribution when the lazy moochers loot from the hard working producers of the world.

OTOH, corporate tax breaks, subsidies, and deregulation that allows them to soak money up from the lower and middle classes AKA trickle down is what invisible hands and fairy dust can do for us.

Anonymous

It seems there is more coming out on the audio of Obama in 1998 saying he was for redistribution. That accounted for 35 seconds of a 29 minute presentation by the future president. It seem Mr. Obama saw opportunity in the poor.

Is Obama going for a permanent underclass?

The Obama redistributionist audio has Obama talking about building a winning electoral coalition including welfare recipients and the working poor. Now the left spoke of Mitch McConnell saying the number one goal was to make Obama a one term president as proof the Republicans kept Obama from succeeding. But if he is looking to make more welfare recipients it appears Obama has succeeded beyond his wildest imagination. What’s good for Obama seems to be bad for the country.

The kind of redistribution obama is talking about is different than what we have seen in the past… I don’t want to find out what he has in mind. Cheif-executive-order-maker will destroy the Land as we know it. he already has while claiming its all good. This place has lost so much momentem.. I belive Romney will attack and put us back on the road to prosperity . even whith all the money in China obama couldn’t and wouldn’t. “Wake up America” Go see the movie everyone is talking about. It validates the concerns. Don’t be scared

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.